There's such a thing as too cryptic. I've just been reading the comments that have been posted here; they all appear to emanate from the US and a couple of them mention a Q & A with the director after a screening. Maybe that's why they know things which weren't evident to me. For example I would not have been able to pinpoint the time as the 1970s; it anything it had a timeless feel that could just as easily have been this year as 1950. Another problem I had was figuring out how Ruthie was able to live in what in England would be middle-class suburbia. When we first meet the them, Ruthie and Bob look as if they don't have change of a match yet half a reel later he's in the slammer and she is living in a very nice and well-appointed house, thank you very much, driving a nice car and apparently doing nothing - i.e. work - to pay for it all. These other posters seem to know that a guy named Skerrit is underwriting all this and not only that, he is the adoptive father to both of them. When, after four years, he breaks out of the slammer there is suddenly a case full of money, buried for years. At the beginning we saw Bob and Ruthie ATTEMPT a hold-up but they were thwarted, so where did the buried loot come from. Answers on a postcard to: Who Cares. If the makers can't be bothered to provide any clues why should we be bothered to even attempt a solution.
Review of Ain't Them Bodies Saints
